RealGM Top 100 List #12

[lorak]

I'll be voting soon. I want to check on a few things with Oscar.

I was looking into how the Royals did after Oscar left, and then I saw the Cousy debacle and how they added Tiny Archibald. Anyone else want to comment on the changes to the team?

Well, 1970 was Cousy's rookie year as a coach and team was quite a mess, to the point, that Cousy even attempted come back at age 41 (so they probably underperformed in 1970). We also know that in 13 games Oscar missed (and Cincinnati had above average replacement at PG in Van Lier) Royals were -7.4 SRS. In 1971 -3.0, so clearly team improved (but still was very bad). For sure addition of rookie Archibald helped, development of Cousy and Van Lier (both rookies in 1970) too, but they also had added four new players, who played +1k minutes in 1971. So the point is that in 1971 team was quite different and improved, because of roster changes and players (coach) development.

EDIT

How many times is this going to come up. Maximum of three all-stars per team.

I do believe you, but do you have any source of that information? Or know how long that rule existed?

[Basketballefan]

I'm sorry, but Kobe's lack of longevity when it relates to the history of the NBA is a massive knock on him. He is basically a copy-cat of Jordan and in that sense, Kobe has no originality to his game. When you think of the greatest Laker of all-time Kobe will never be alone on that list, unlike modern NBA greats like Jordan (CHI), Lebron (CLE), Duncan (SA), and Hakeem (HOU).

Lol what? Kobe's longevity is a knock on him? He was a top 10 player for 13-14 seasons, and top 5 for several different seasons, and played 17-18 seasons total. And saying Kobe isn't the greatest Laker isn't logical reasoning to knock him when there were guys like Magic, Kareem, Shaq, West etc who were all top 15 players. And the "copy-cat of Jordan" is one of the dumbest things i ever heard. Your logic from top to bottom is ridiculous.

[shutupandjam]

Runoff vote: Oscar Robertson

This was a really tough choice for me because I have these guys neck and neck. Both elite offensive guards with questionable defense; both very poor off court teammates. What separates them to me though is how they were as teammates on the court. Oscar was more unselfish, more creative, and more willing to do what it took for his team to win (this is especially the case in his Milwaukee days).

Every old Bucks game I have watched, I've come away more impressed by Oscar than I had expected - he's a rare elite playmaker with terrific size who can score at high rates. His defensive issues aren't that concerning to me in this comparison because I'm not sold on Kobe's overall defensive impact either. I don't mean to discount Kobe because I certainly think he's on Oscar's level, I just prefer Oscar's style of play, and if I'm selecting between the two, I'll very likely go with Oscar.

[therealbig3]

I will say that I don't think you can get much of anything about individual defense from with/without or on/off. The only things you can do to really evaluate defense imo would be the subjective eye-test, as well as Synergy/RAPM when available.

Lineups play differently when a player is not playing. The defense might play better for some reason, even if the player that's not playing is supposed to be a good defender...but maybe the lineup being played is a defensive lineup that struggles offensively, and overall, they become a worse team, because their offense gets a lot worse?

Impact is impact, if Kobe's on/off is still +10, but instead of +5 on offense and +5 on defense, it's +12 on offense and -2 on defense...who cares? He's still a +10 player.

I think what on/off and with/without does show is that Kobe is a replaceable defender, and that it's really his offense that determines most of his impact, and that it's most likely the case that his defense isn't nearly the game-changer that his reputation suggests. As a result, Kobe's defense is very rarely going to make much of a difference in these comparisons, because there's not much evidence for him being a high impact defender.

[DQuinn1575]

[

How many times is this going to come up. Maximum of three all-stars per team.

I do believe you, but do you have any source of that information? Or know how long that rule existed?

Source : Sporting News 2/7/1970 page 5

Since the first game, the basic ground rule has been to select no more than three players from any one team and at least one from each club.

[Black Feet]

Watching a few televised games isn't watching a player every season. Not elite? Was he paying coaches on the side to vote him in? Or could it be you guys just have no idea what your talking about? I'll go with the latter.

Make a substantive retort or don't post. There are far better ways to attempt a positive discussion of Kobe's defense than a crappy ad hominem without any kind of countering evidence to the point made.

Well the thing is I don't know what point was made or what evidence was provided, he said he watched televised games well I watched almost all Laker games, maybe I should I have countered with that instead. It was a serious question that people don't seem to have a good answer to, so let me reword it then. How did he get those selections in the first place if he wasn't deserving? Is it because he's a Laker? Is it because he was popular? . Ask yourself why he is the only player on this site that people question his defensive selections as a whole every chance they get. It seems to me that people just want to harp on things that can't really be proven, obviously statistics is not a good way of judging how good a player is defensively. I'm just asking questions if that's not allowed then I'll stop posting in this thread.

[PaulieWal]

Watching a few televised games isn't watching a player every season. Not elite? Was he paying coaches on the side to vote him in? Or could it be you guys just have no idea what your talking about? I'll go with the latter.

Make a substantive retort or don't post. There are far better ways to attempt a positive discussion of Kobe's defense than a crappy ad hominem without any kind of countering evidence to the point made.

Well the thing is I don't know what point was made or what evidence was provided, he said he watched televised games well I watched almost all Laker games, maybe I should I have countered with that instead. It was a serious question that people don't seem to have a good answer to, so let me reword it then. How did he get those selections in the first place if he wasn't deserving? Is it because he's a Laker? Is it because he was popular? . Ask yourself why he is the only player on this site that people question his defensive selections as a whole every chance they get. It seems to me that people just want to harp on things that can't really be proven, obviously statistics is not a good way of judging how good a player is defensively. I'm just asking questions if that's not allowed then I'll stop posting in this thread.

Kobe deserved some of those selections, some he didn't. Plain and simple. He's not the only one. LeBron too got a questionable second-team selection this year, so do many other players. You think Kobe deserved those selections in 11 and 12 when even the most ardent Kobe fans will admit he was a one-way player? That's why those get questioned when people bring it up and say, "He has the most all-defensive selections ever". Well, he didn't deserve some of them, 11 and 12 being the most obvious ones. That doesn't take anything away from Kobe's greatness and the fact that he is IMO a top 10 player but those all-defensive selections are not all deserved.

[Owly]

5 and 4 in row? Which years do you have him not making the playoffs?
And wow, that's the first time I've heard him not taking a -5.92 SRS, worst team in the league, straight to the playoffs held against him. '68 too has pretty much been explained. They were clearly a playoff team with him, they were an abysmal, awful, shockingly bad team without. Thats year is not a knock on Oscar's resume in any way. So it comes down to 2 years. 2 years where he's edging out of his prime, one of those with Lucas and the team is .500 and doesn't make it in the stronger conference, and the other one the already somewhat addressed transition year with Cousy.

I'm not sure about "playoff years" as a methodology (arbitrary depending on conference, injuries, teammates play a large role etc) but here it's very superficially done (and wrong in details such as number of years and allegation of "several" missed playoffs with Lucas, which was once when healthy).

He missed playoffs in 60-61. It was his rookie year, but you can say it was his prime, because he almost put a triple double.
Then 68,69 and 70.
3 in a row, I made a mistake.

10 seasons in Cincinnati, 4 seasons under 50% W-L, one at 40% and 5 over 50% W-L (only one above 50 Wins).
And you can't play he was playing with bad suporting cast... Wayne Embry was 5 times allstar with O in the team. Lucas was 6 times. Jack Twyman 2 times, and Adrian Smith and Tom Van Ardesale one time each other. In fact Oscar played with 1 all star all 5 years and with 2 more all star other 5 years in CIN.

There were only 4-5 teams per division and teams couldn't have more than 3 all-stars per team. As a result, guys like Tom Meschery and Adrian Smith wind up with an all-star game selection. Decent starters who one year had things line up their way

40-45 starters in league, and 22 were all-stars - and only 3 Celtics allowed - so not a high bar.

Lucas was obviously legit all-star
Embry was basically 2nd best center in division/4th best in league - which really makes him above average starter for 5 years - luck of draw makes him multi-time all-star



1961 - 4 teams in conference limit 3 per team - Cinci had to have 2nd all-star. team improved from 19 wins year before.
1962 - Twyman legit all-star Embry 2nd best center in division
1963 4 teams in conference limit 3 per team - Cinci had to have 2nd all-star


Van Arsdale was a legit all-star, but basically with Cousy and Oscar clashing 1970 is a lost year.

Regarding Embry, even if he was an above median center is above average really fully reflective when he's giving sub-mean production (skewed by the top 2 - perhaps later 3 or 5 with Bellamy, Reed or Thurmond though those latter two come late in his all-star run) at the position.

Not that I'm sure 4th is given - not that I'm sure you're saying he is (these numbers used and approximate rankings just giving a surface level impression assuming no unknown studs or absolute calamities on D, and I believe Bellamy was poor here, but not sufficiently to drop him to Embry quality in his first years)
'61: http://bkref.com/tiny/ZMOlg 4-6th (with Ferry and Dukes, some might argue Kerr in there) clearly behind big 2 and Lovellette
'62: http://bkref.com/tiny/A2ox8 4-5 (with Kerr; Lovellette better per min but misses a big chunk, Ferry in ballpark but low minutes) behind big 2 and Walt Bellamy
'63: http://bkref.com/tiny/GnN1Q 4-5, probably 5 (with Kerr, others roughly as productive but much lower minutes) as '62
'64: http://bkref.com/tiny/HsuAj 4-5 (with Kerr, many others in approx ballpark but ... McGill low mins, Beatty misses games, Ferry low minutes, Thurmond low minutes and playing forward and sub-optimal role, though on the other hand it's Nate Thurmond) as '62
'65: http://bkref.com/tiny/OtKX2 7 (ahead of Ellis based on minutes) behind big 2, Beatty, Bellamy, Thurmond and Reed.

He was a consistent, reliable and quite good, middle of the pack (median) starter (who, iirc, it has been suggested benefitted quite a bit playing with Robertson) in a league where you needed a superstar at that position or on many night's you'd be at a very substantial disadvantage.

It is not close to the assumed advantage the title "all-star" (these days) gives.

[Black Feet]

It's like Jeter's defense. It just stirs up so much debate.

Okay seriously the only objective, hard evidence you have are these coaching selections for defense. But do you really want to bet on those? Given the breadth of history we have at our side on how defensive voting works, how a DH won once in baseball, how it's a reputation based vote, do you really think this is the best way to judge defense?

And like every coach actually votes. I've heard before that the coaches give the vote for someone else because they're too busy.

We can keep throwing building this extensive pile of evidence, but all you guys come back to "yeah but all defense teams." Hey maybe those are flawed.

Well I find Baseball to be a very boring sport and don't watch it so I can't comment on Jeter. As far as coaches being too busy I'm not buying, it's not like they don't extensive knowledge of most players in the league matter fact that is part of thier job. Do I think they have more knowledge than most fans? Absolutely. As far as extensive pile of evidence I'm not seeing it, saying the Lakers had a few good defensive games without Bryant doesn't really prove anything nor is it extensive or even a good sample size.

[Owly]

I'll be voting soon. I want to check on a few things with Oscar.

I was looking into how the Royals did after Oscar left, and then I saw the Cousy debacle and how they added Tiny Archibald. Anyone else want to comment on the changes to the team?

Well, 1970 was Cousy's rookie year as a coach and team was quite a mess, to the point, that Cousy even attempted come back at age 41 (so they probably underperformed in 1970). We also know that in 13 games Oscar missed (and Cincinnati had above average replacement at PG in Van Lier) Royals were -7.4 SRS. In 1971 -3.0, so clearly team improved (but still was very bad). For sure addition of rookie Archibald helped, development of Cousy and Van Lier (both rookies in 1970) too, but they also had added four new players, who played +1k minutes in 1971. So the point is that in 1971 team was quite different and improved, because of roster changes and players (coach) development.

EDIT

How many times is this going to come up. Maximum of three all-stars per team.

I do believe you, but do you have any source of that information? Or know how long that rule existed?

Most obvious immediate confirmation is looking at Boston (and others but they're the team you'd expect) consistently only ever having 3 (except one late injury replacement). I'd guess I first learned of it from something like 24 Seconds to Shoot though totally not sure on this, for online sources the easiest one to find is at http://www.allstarnba.es/ballot/1965.htm

The starting five and three bench players (one per position) were chosen by sportwriters and sportcasters. NBA coaches chose the rest of the bench players. Until 1973, each NBA team had to be represented with at least 1 players, and a maximum of 3 players.

So it went on up until '73.

[Melodabeast]

Now Kobe wasn't great defensively in 2000? The "reputation" angle goes back farther and farther with every passing year. What a joke.

[Black Feet]

Kobe deserved some of those selections, some he didn't. Plain and simple. He's not the only one. LeBron too got a questionable second-team selection this year, so do many other players. You think Kobe deserved those selections in 11 and 12 when even the most ardent Kobe fans will admit he was a one-way player? That's why those get questioned when people bring it up and say, "He has the most all-defensive selections ever". Well, he didn't deserve some of them, 11 and 12 being the most obvious ones. That doesn't take anything away from Kobe's greatness and the fact that he is IMO a top 10 player but those all-defensive selections are not all deserved.

I'm not even saying he deserved every selection or that the coaches are always right. The original post I replied to said he was never an elite defender to begin with which I think couldn't be farther than the truth.

[drza]

We can keep throwing building this extensive pile of evidence, but all you guys come back to "yeah but all defense teams." Hey maybe those are flawed.

I'll throw this out as someone who puts some stock in all-defense selections.

1. Who, other than Kobe and Bird would you say got selected all-defense that shouldn't have been?
2. How many years (it can be zero) did Kobe did all-defense?

I'm not going to put a lot of effort in here or try to really prove anything, and I'm primarily addressing #2. But generally speaking the argument could be made on pretty much a year-by-year basis that there were always 4 - 6 guards/wings that had better defensive seasons than Kobe. You could start with your "big name" defending wings, if you will...your Christie, Bowen, Artest, Eddie Jones types early and later your Iguodalas, Tony Allens, Luol Dengs and Battiers. They had defensive reputations that seem to be born out by the RAPM numbers on a yearly basis compared to other wings. Then you have bigger name offensive players that also show up multiple times with positive defensive RAPM scores (well higher than Kobes) like your Jason Kidds, your late career John Stocktons, there're a few Paul Pierce sitings early in the decade, lots of Manu Ginobili's. Then there are your borderline bench/starter defensive role player types like Lindsey Hunter, Augmon or Posey early in the decade or Ariza and pre-Toronto Kyle Lowry types later. I'm really just cherry-picking names, though, as there are a lot to choose from every year.

Of course, whether you put any stake in RAPM or not is up to you. But I will say that, among guards and wings that are thought of as good defenders, Kobe is about the only one that I can think of that pretty much never shows up as any kind of significant positive in DRAPM at any point in his career (2010 was his best finish in an All Defensive year at +1.8, and that was his only positive mark over +1). The closest other example I can think of that has a reputation so beyond his usual score is Rondo, but at least he really was in the +2 to +3.6 range from 07 - 09 before tailing off into the below 1 range as his offensive responsibilities grew.

[ElGee]

I've posted in the past about Karl Malone's longevity, playoff performances, team offenses, team quality, Winning Bias, etc. The one thing that I want to echo that I see mentioned frequently is Malone's relationship to Stockton. Malone is naturally a good pnR player because he developed a good outside shot and he's good in transition/with momentum (rolling). He can do this with any competent 2-man game guard, although Stockton was better than most. Similarly, Malone is a good isolation offensive player. I wouldn't call him great in the historical context -- Kobe Bryant is clearly better -- but Karl's a great passer, decent at getting to the hoop/FT line and has a good mid-range shot/fadeaway.

Without Stockton, Malone played 18 games to start the 98 season. He averaged 24.9 ppg, on 58.2% TS and 3.6 apg. With an 18 game sample, based on Malone's variance throughout the consistent part of his prime (1988-98) there's a 95% likelihood that after an 18 game sample, his points are +/- 2.8 and his TS% +/- 5.0%. Thus, I find it very, very hard to watch the way Malone plays (which isn't dependent on Stockton to create lots of layups for his scoring) and conclude that that sample isn't close to indicating his" true" averages without Stock (or value, if you look at the team result).

To corroborate, in a small sample (but different time/setting) Malone played 4 games without Stockton in 1990 and averaged 26.3 ppg on 63.6% TS and 3.8 apg. And in 1992, in one of his best PS games, Stockton left the game early (G5 vs. Portland) and Malone marched to 38 points (58% TS).

The evidence shows that unipolar scoring outputs, where guys "carry" an enormous scoring load like this, isn't that valuable. Therefore I don't think that's the takeaway from this. Instead, the takeaway is that most of Malone's strengths as an offensive player weren't truly that synergistic with Stockton, and they certainly weren't dependent upon him. (You can see this from just watching how Malone operates -- e.g. watch his 98 G4 vs SAS or lots of what he does to LA in the next round...) Stockton's mastery of the PnR certainly helped enhance Malone's numbers/impact, especially a younger Malone, but 95-98 Malone was polished, a great passer from mid and low post, and played very well within a team context independent of Stockton.

I'v also tracked a bunch of old games over the years, 2 of which were G4 and G5 from the 95 series vs. Houston. In G4, Stockton had 8 Opportunities Created (OC) and 4 Fouls Drawn (FD). Malone had 3 OC and 9 FD. Malone had two jumpers created for him that he made in that game. (Stockton had 1.) In G5, almost the same splits: Stockton 9 OC, 3 FD's, Malone 4 OC, 9 FD. Malone had zero buckets created for him that game, Stockton 1.

[magicmerl]

Currently:

Kobe 16 (Ardee, Basketballefan, batmana, GC Pantalones, JordanBulls, ShaqAttack3234, lukekarts, john248, DHodgkins, trex_8063, colts18, therealbig3, penbeast0, ronnymac2, rich316, FJS)
Oscar 20 ( DannyNoonan1221, DQuinn1575, Heartbreakkid, lorak, Narigo, Owly, Quotatious, SactoKingsFan, Doctor MJ, magicmerl, Jaivl, tsherkin, Chuck Texas, RayBan-Sematra, Warspite, Clyde Frazier, Baller2014, PCProductions, dautjazz, shutupandjam)

not voted but leaning Oscar (drza)
not voted but leaning Kobe (90sAllDecade)

[ElGee]

One thing concrete I can add about Bryant's defense, that I alluded to me in my last post about him, is that I have stat-tracked a few Lakers games in the past. 02 Spurs G5, 06 G4, G5 and G6 vs Suns:

2002 v Spurs G5: Had 3 defensive errors (2 blow by's). Only 1 3pa attempted against (miss) and helped out on a missed shot as well (0-1.5 FGA against)

2006 v Suns G4: 4 Defensive errors (!) only 2 3pta against (misses). He did not guard Nash in this series, although I did note one sequence where he was switched on to Nash and totally blown by off the dribble leading to a layup.

2006 v Suns G5: 0 Defensive errors. 1-1.5 FGA against and 0-1 3pa against. My defensive note this game was "Nash killing Kwame on the PnR"

2006 v Suns G6: 1 Defensive error (blow by). 0-1.5 FGA against.

I have a lot of notes from that game ("Phoenix playing no bigs. Odom's defensive rotations so good. Odom abusing Marion in post. Nash killing, just KILLING Kwame on PnR switches. Nash back/groin flaring up."

2006 v Suns G4-G6: +0.3 Defensive Expected Value (slightly below average), 1.7 Defensive errors/game (high -- roughly league worst rates). 1-3 2pt FG against, 0-3 3pt FG against. (Good percentages) I'd categorize him in the 4 games as a low usage defender who made lots of mistakes.

[Baller2014]

Currently:

Kobe 16 (Ardee, Basketballefan, batmana, GC Pantalones, JordanBulls, ShaqAttack3234, lukekarts, john248, DHodgkins, trex_8063, colts18, therealbig3, penbeast0, ronnymac2, rich316, FJS)
Oscar 20 ( DannyNoonan1221, DQuinn1575, Heartbreakkid, lorak, Narigo, Owly, Quotatious, SactoKingsFan, Doctor MJ, magicmerl, Jaivl, tsherkin, Chuck Texas, RayBan-Sematra, Warspite, Clyde Frazier, Baller2014, PCProductions, dautjazz, shutupandjam)

not voted but leaning Oscar (drza)
not voted but leaning Kobe (90sAllDecade)

I have it 21-17, so I think you missed 2 votes there. Your count is also wrong because you're counting dautjazz for Oscar. The votes you missed are probably all recent. Notnoob voted for Oscar for instance.
EDIT: You also missed Moonbeam for Oscar, and 90'sdecade for Kobe, so that brings it up to 21-17.

[Black Feet]

One thing concrete I can add about Bryant's defense, that I alluded to me in my last post about him, is that I have stat-tracked a few Lakers games in the past. 02 Spurs G5, 06 G4, G5 and G6 vs Suns:

2002 v Spurs G5: Had 3 defensive errors (2 blow by's). Only 1 3pa attempted against (miss) and helped out on a missed shot as well (0-1.5 FGA against)

2006 v Suns G4: 4 Defensive errors (!) only 2 3pta against (misses). He did not guard Nash in this series, although I did note one sequence where he was switched on to Nash and totally blown by off the dribble leading to a layup.

2006 v Suns G5: 0 Defensive errors. 1-1.5 FGA against and 0-1 3pa against. My defensive note this game was "Nash killing Kwame on the PnR"

2006 v Suns G6: 1 Defensive error (blow by). 0-1.5 FGA against.

I have a lot of notes from that game ("Phoenix playing no bigs. Odom's defensive rotations so good. Odom abusing Marion in post. Nash killing, just KILLING Kwame on PnR switches. Nash back/groin flaring up."

2006 v Suns G4-G6: +0.3 Defensive Expected Value (slightly below average), 1.7 Defensive errors/game (high -- roughly league worst rates). 1-3 2pt FG against, 0-3 3pt FG against. (Good percentages) I'd categorize him in the 4 games as a low usage defender who made lots of mistakes.

Interesting , wish more people would do this. Did you do this for any other players? Haven't been following this project that close.

[acrossthecourt]

I don't think Kobe deserved any 1st-team selection. As for the 2nd teams, guards are usually so weak on defense he may have deserved some, but it might not mean anything. If we're talking about overall player value, it doesn't matter that few other guards are great defensively. If we're talking about Kobe as a replaceable defensive player, it doesn't really close the gap versus other offensive guys like Oscar.

As someone who watched a lot of those Shaq-Laker games and a lot of recent Lakers game too, the problem is that while he's good locked in and engaged, that's often too rare, and he's a poor team defender. During some of his best offensive years, including last season, he just basically stopped competing on defense and saved his energy for the other end. And in watching an old Kobe-Shaq game, they used him a lot as a "stopper" but I really wasn't impressed by his work. It seems like he's a great defender -- his athleticism, how he gets into position, his intensity -- but he's sometimes too aggressive and he's not great at cutting off angles.



Oscar

What I find remarkable is that he was so efficient compared to his era even while taking a lot of midrange shots.

Random thought on his value: since halfcourt offenses were much less efficient back then, a guard who can rebound, lead the break, pass, or score might be uniquely and extremely valuable. It might explain why offenses collapsed without him. If only we had access to fast break/transition stats backs then....

Another random aside: I created a metric to predict NBA finals MVPs given past voting trends to apply it to new finals or ones pre-'69. Oscar was nearly tied with Kareem for their title, and I saw another poster mention his good defense in the series. It's pretty telling that the demise of the Bucks correlated with Oscar aging and moving on. It's hard to deny his worth, and I'm not simply going to ignore him because he played without three-point lines and better scouting. Those are disadvantages everyone had back then, and he stood out.

[magicmerl]

I have it 21-17, so I think you missed 2 votes there. Your count is also wrong because you're counting dautjazz for Oscar. The votes you missed are probably all recent. Notnoob voted for Oscar for instance.
EDIT: You also missed Moonbeam for Oscar, and 90'sdecade for Kobe, so that brings it up to 21-17.

Thanks. I have dautjazz voting for Oscar here (or are you saying he doesn't get a vote yet?)

Currently:

Kobe 17 (Ardee, Basketballefan, batmana, GC Pantalones, JordanBulls, ShaqAttack3234, lukekarts, john248, DHodgkins, trex_8063, colts18, therealbig3, penbeast0, ronnymac2, rich316, FJS, 90sAllDecade)
Oscar 21 ( DannyNoonan1221, DQuinn1575, Heartbreakkid, lorak, Narigo, Owly, Quotatious, SactoKingsFan, Doctor MJ, magicmerl, Jaivl, tsherkin, Chuck Texas, RayBan-Sematra, Warspite, Clyde Frazier, Baller2014, PCProductions, shutupandjam, Notanoob, Moonbeam)

not voted but leaning Oscar (drza)
would vote for Oscar if in the project (dautjazz)